Capital Punishment
 

But suppose the 1 guy getting beat up is some thieving, violent little shit who robbed and attacked the other 2 guys? Then you're the one in the wrong for helping him.


I have to agree with this assessment. I'd never attack or harm anybody for no reason, but if someone seriously and irreparably wronged me like murdering, raping etc. someone close to me, it'd be get a shotgun time. Revenge isn't justifiable, I know, but I'd still enact it. It's a reason I believe the death penalty should be brought back in the UK- it won't bring the victim back, but it may give the family some closure knowing that the scumbag who hurt them is dead and rotting.

Sorry, but I think the death penalty is one of the most hypocritical things a government can have. Murdering for murdering isn't justice.

The main force for the prospect behind the reintroduction of the death penalty should be the idea of prevention, one of which I do not believe in, but can see how it would be justifiable. A law based upon the principle of Revenge is a dire message in consideration of our supposed 'civility'.

My counter argument for revenge will always be the same; if it's an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth then we torture torturers and rape rapists.

That's the world in which we all end up as blind soup enthusiasts. Not a thrilling prospect, but fun for some, I guess.

I think death is enough of a punishment ,to be honest, but some may disagree. The death penalty would indeed be a deterrent, but there is another reason I support it:

Suppose a multiple murderer, who's killed a relative of yours, amongst many other people, is sent to jail. Who pays to keep him alive in jail? You, the relative of the victim, by paynig taxes to fund the prison upkeep. Or, even if you're totally unconnected to the crime, you're still paying taxes to keep a bottom of the gutter criminal alive, who will never amount to anything in society and has already committed one of the most horrific crimes imaginable. And he may even get out of jail eventually, certainly in the UK he might. How is that justice? 25-30 years in prison for killing someone, or several people? Death is hypocritical, yes, but what alternative is there for such a scumbag? A 25 year 'life' sentence in this day and age is nothing.

Only the other day there was a news story about 3 16, 17 and 19 year olds getting barely 20 years in jail each for murdering somebody. How is that justice? If you can murder for no reason at that age, you'll never reform, you were an asshole from the start. Those pieces of crap will get out of jail before they're 40, and will be able to live a life again and possibly commit further crimes. Their victim desn't start living again when they get out.

I apologise for my lexical ambiguity, I object to the idea of capital punishment being viewed as as a deterrent because firstly; no seriour criminal would ever factor in the chance they may get caught into their plans, and secondly because, statistically speaking, crimes are more common in individualistic cultures that support the death penalty, I realise I am making a tenuous link between correlation and causation here but the point I'm trying to get across is that Capital Punishment simply does not work as a deterrent.

By prevention I meant the simple fact that no dead rapist/terrorist will ever do it again. Oh and your reasons lend weight to that argument, I do not believe in the death penalty for murderers, 'crimes of passion' are just the simple length any man will go to if pushed far enough (Note; this is not an excuse it is a reason, this is the point of reasoning where the idea of punishment and rehabilitation come in) and cold blooded murderers are a biological abnormality, which just isn't treatable for the present. I only swing towards the idea of Capital Punishment as prevention where rapists, terrorists, torturers and practising paedophiles are concerned.

Executing someone is far more costly than keeping them alive for the rest of their days. The red tape of legally ending someone's life could circle the Earth twice, reach the moon and back, and still have the length spare to strangle Martin Johnson. It goes on and on. The penal system is better off investing in a prison than a graveyard for financial reasons alone.

Taxes to keep such criminals alive are thousands per person. A bullet costs less than a quid. Please explain, as I don't see what you're getting at.

And Wings, it is true that many criminals don't think about being caught, but some do, or at least consider the repercussions. If it stopped 1 innocent person from being murdered/raped/whatever, it'd be worth it IMO.

Cold blooded criminals aren't that rare. What can start as a crime of passion can metamorphosize into something else. And crimes of passion are a bit iffy to define- is it impulsive or planned out? To me, planned murder or whatever isn't a crime of passion, it's in the middle, leaning towards cold-blooded. Yes, it has motives and reasons, which pure cold-blooded killings may not have (although they could be construed as having the motive that they give the criminal satisfaction, pelasure or whatever)), but it is still a considered and intended crime, so has forethought, implications and considerations for events after the crime, and is not a spur of the moment thing. Passion is defined as strong emotions, true, but emotions are spontaneous and typically uncontrollable. Hence why IMO, a motivated yet planned murder is closer to being a cold-blooded killing than a crime of passion.


.....Man, we've really deviated off-topic. Maybe a "Capital Punishment" topic is in order?

A single bullet and nothing else? That is murder. Executions are supposed to be legal which means it has to go through all the proper legal channels. It can take years.

That's not true. Execution is far cheaper and more economical, that's one of the huge arguments for making it nationally legal in the US.

In every online debate on the death penalty I have participated in, the cost has always been the tool of the against party.

EDIT: some links

[linkage]

[ultimate mega linkage]

I understand that, but ugh, it'd be so simple to do it quick. Guy is found guilty, guy is given death penalty. Guy is taken to public place, guy is shot. End of.

Also, I did a double take when I saw this, as I didn't recall starting such a thread until I realsied you'd just moved the posts.

What do you think is worse? Insta-death, or being locked in a metal cage with butt rape abound? No death penalty is bettah ah say!

Yeah, but the government needs to set an example for its people. How can they expect to enforce the law when they contradict it themselves?

Everything is not as it appears. The Government contradicts itself. Spies abound.

Meet me in the treehouse at 8 and I'll tell you more.

Who cares if it's murder? We're talking about killing useless shits that will wouldn't lift a finger to help anyone and wouldn't do a single thing for the community that they lived in. Flies are pests, so we kill them. Rapists, murderers, et cetera are pests, so why not kill them?

and what if they're innocent, what if the people who commit them are corrupt, and how can you judge these people when under the same circumstances of them, you are as perfectly capable as they are?
Realy, it's not for us to decide
who can live or die
("well you'll probably go to heaven...")
So to sum it up, no to capital punnishment, unless they have a concience choice under no pressure at all, and they can choose to revoke their sentance whenever they want to before the punnishment.
But to be safe, i'd say no capital punishment altogether.

What if they aren't guilty? Trust me, I hate the Government as much as you do/would, but I think that there must be someone there that is actually competent enough to actually check with what the police have found out and any other important areas of the whole thing before sentencing them to death.

Answer me this:
Do you want rapists, thieves and murders roaming freely in society?

No, that's why we would imprison them.

Because murderers and rapists are not flies, and I still retain the youthful optimism that humanity can aspire to something more civilised and cerebral than the wholesale slaughter of our most undesirables. The only thing that separates us from these people is that we do not engage in the same practices, and I would very much prefer that it stay that way.

I'm gonna stick my head into a discussion for once. :P I agree with Mudling on this and I'm going to say that, ontop of everything else, sometimes the justice system can get it wrong. Innocent people have been sent to prison, not because the system was corrupt or so, but because they made a mistake when trying (if that's the right word) them.

When you put someone on trail, there are a many, many factors to be considered. What they did, what evidence is there against them, what evidence there is to prove their innocence, what the witnesses saw - The list goes on. The justice system is ran by humans. One of the things that humans do best is make mistakes, especially when things are so complex. And each case is unique.

Believe me, mistakes happen. Some people just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Now, with innocent people, you can go "Oh, sorry. We took several years away from your life, but we made a mistake." and release them afterward. With people you killed, you can't bring them back to life.

IMO, Capital Punishment isn't a good way of doing justice for this reason alone. You'd mostly kill the muderists and the rapists, sure, but putting innocent people to death is murder too. And besides, two wrongs don't make a right. Dude kills. You kill this dude. All you acheive is two deaths. Think about it. It's not to stay that murderists and rapists shouldn't be punsihed - Of course they should. But they shouldn't be punished in this way, IMO. And before you'll whine at me, the rational part of me would still be saying this even if they killed those closest to me while the other, not-so-rational part of me would want them dead without question. But I'm human. Sue me.

Wings of Fire and Bullet Magnet make some valid points too, BTW - I've thought about the methods of killing and stuff, but I've never once considered how expensive it'd be.

Mistakes can happen yes, and it's worse for 1 innocent person to be wrongly executed than 10 criminals go free. But while mistakes do happen, surely it's possile to actually get enough facts right to know somebody is guilty? There are risks associated with the death penalty, but the fact that currently such criminals can find their way back into society due to both human error AND an overly lenient system, is an equal, if not greater risk.

Human error can't be corrected, overly soft penalties can.

Locking someone up for the rest of thier lives is hardly soft.

And this is what they ought to be doing. A "Life" sentance ought to mean life. They ought to re-search how to lock people up in the most cost-effective way, then re-vamp the prison system. Prisons shouldn't be very comfy, either (and apparrantly they are - In the UK, people are trying to break IN to prison. :S And some criminals don't want to leave because some prisons are comfy - How is that a deterrant??).

But yeah, as a side note, maybe people are asking the wrong questions. Maybe instead of asking "Is Capital Punishment justifyable?", maybe they should be asking "Why are people murdering others in the first place?" I'm not going to delve far into this, though and it's probably a completely different kettle of fish, and I think Wings of Fire mentioned the prevention thing a few times.


EDIT: Although you do have a point too - Human error can go the other way. People have also been released when they shouldn't have been.

Which isn't a problem about to be solved by capital punishment, now, is it?

To summarize, capital punishment is akin to trimming your weeds every so often so they don't make too much of a mess of your flowers and prison can be compared to building a wall separating grown weeds from flowers.

Society would be better off spending the money that would be used in the weed shearing to find out what the hell is wrong with the soil, as Dark Hood briefly mentioned.

Interesting and apt analogy WoF. Only trouble is I think the reason for the 'bad soil' if you want, is that fundamentally humans are self centered, emotionally unstable, unpredictable and ucnaring individuals by nature, and it is only nurture that makes most people good. Withotu law and order, or a sense of morality, we'd all be criminals, yet there'd be no such classification as no law structure would be present.

I think what drives people to crime is either a perosnal feeling of being wronged, an emotional breakdown, deep-rooted natural instability (such as a twisted ego or sense of pleasure), or a lack of law and discipline in early years. Many criminals were often little shits when young, yet by the same token many were not, hence the other classifications/ possible explanations.

Actually, altruism, the behaviour at the heart and origin of morality and proper social function, is instinctive and evolved.

Therefore it is our individualistic culture that allows for such contradictory behaviour among humans. Studies in collectivist countries have proven that their citizenry are more likely to help, even at possible cost to themselves, than the citizenry of the western world. Put simply; we are socialized into being selfish bastards.

That's now three posts by me lamenting on the shortfalls of Capitalism, and to think, it's not like I actually believe in Communism.

The whole society-makes-the-man thing is illustrated pretty well in Bowling for Columbine, a film by Michael moore. I hate him, but he makes some pretty good points in it.

Funny, I do support capitalism (even though like all social systems, it has its flaws) , yet I agree on much of what you said, and definitely on the collectivist point. Tribes in South America will help each other and work together, not always through neccessity but often through choice.

I don't think it's a flaw in the capitalist society, I think it's a flaw that the moment anybody has any power/status/wealth/whatever, it can potentially corrupt them. Or alternatively, if someone has a lack of said things, it can do the same. I believe this could easily occur in a communist state too- equality can breed contempt and ambition. People, used to Western life, would naturally want more and want to rise above each other, again resulting in the criminal-breeding defects of society. Not everybody would follow such a path but some would, again resulting in the omnipresent criminal aspect. This is why I believe you can't actually cultivate people out of criminal life, but instead must turn criminal tactics against them- force and frighten the criminal aspect away, whether through the prospect of harsher penalties, or through the enacting of said penalties to set an exampel and prevent repeat offences.

Discussions like this are the reason I'm taking Psychology at college, by the way. Nobody will ever REALLY be right or wrong, as exceptions and contradictions can always be found. It's really just a matter of viewpoint and personal sense of morality, justice etc.

In addition to what WoF and BM have stated previously:

1) Studies in the USA have shown that the death penalty is not regarded as a deterrent to criminals.
2) Every single death penalty case in the US has been appealed over and over again. There was one particular case where the guy pleaded guilty and couldn't be bothered fighting a case that he knew he'd lose. Amnesty appealed on his behalf, against his will. As BM said, the costs involved are absurd.

Later research in the USA has shown that up to 5-10% of cases where a person has been executed, they've later been found innocent due to more evidence or better technology. In most cases, the convicted person was black.

An interesting fact: if a kid in the bad parts of Miami shoots someone and is sent to Death Row, it will actually increase his life expectancy compared to staying home.

The only way capital punishment works, if, you don't kill the person because of punishment, but you kill them because of the enormous risk of keeping them alive.
Now, I still disagree with this, but in the case of a terrorist ring leader like Osama Bin Laden (who was captured by the brittish, and held untill the Americans could rescue him, of course he escaped), or something like 3:10 to Yuma (as in the movie that recently came out), where someone of extreme risk is captured, and you're in enemy territory, or very close to it, then maybe, under those extreme circumstances, killing your victim is the only choice, if of course, he/ she poses a great threat alive and free.
But this wouldn't even be put under trail, it would more be a military execution, so even that doesn't realy count as captial punishment.

Over here in England, we have a prison overcrowding problem. Therefore, prisoners are being released early and continuing with their shenanigans. That's why I would prefer more executions.

And just how many crimes would you make capital offences in order to make any difference at all to overcrowding?

I'm not sure, but I sure as hell know that I'm moving to another country when I have the money. Possibly America. I know the crime rates won't be any better, but at least I'll be in a place where I've always wanted to stay.

But, I know I'm going off topic, so i'll choose to end this post now.

Wait, you want to live in America?

Your logic has major flaws. As BM implied, would you execute people for smaller crimes even if they didn't kill or hurt anyone?

And you want to move from the UK into America? Good luck filling in all the immigration and security papers (Yes, you'll be forced too even if you're British). And I hope you'll have a lot of money - The NHS may suck but at least they won't leave you dying on the street when you've been injured because you can't afford to pay for your healthcare.

Did I ever say i thought that moving to America would be easy? No. I know my logic has major flaws, but in my eyes, people committing any crime are a waste of time and money and must be dispatched as quickly as possible.

And Used - yes, I do. I want to move to the state I lived in for about a year when I was a very young child. It was a farm area.

If you'll read the topic and especially what Bullet Magnet said, dispatching them takes a lot more time and money than locking them up. This makes your logic even more flawed. :P

But about the USA thing. It's your choice in the end where you want to live, but remember this: Things you saw through the eyes of a child look very, VERY much different through the eyes of an adult. This includes places and areas. And trust me on this 'cause I've had to deal with it very often throughout my life.

That's one of the things about childhood. You don't know very much. :P And I miss my childhood ignorance a hell of a lot sometimes. :( But now we're straying off-topic.

Also note that most people in jail over here in England are because they aren't paying tax rather than those who murder. Monetary crimes are alot more serious here than anything involving injuring or killing people. I'm not even bloody joking, it's a joke over here.

Life sentences would seem a greater punishment (provided they're not kept in too much class, which seems to be the case. Homeless people deliberately get thrown in jail because it's better than being on the street...wtf) than death penalty, however, after a while a prisoner could easily become used to it and not give a s*it, the places are fairly lax anyway (there was news about prisoners getting hold of drugs in there...yeah...), and the fact that life sentences never are these days. I've heard of people having a life sentence for about 5 years, then getting out. Point being?

I don't think there really is a right solution to this...too many scumbags as it is, jails full, planet overpopulation, life sentences not working, but is death easy way out blah blah blah...
Neither option seems viable these days. We need holy judgment or something, I swear. Hopefully, if our technology gets good enough, we can read peoples minds with them, to prove innocence or guilt. Rather than a freakin' court. Wonder how long it'll take for that though.